Energy vs Angles Fighter // BFM vs ACM

[[CPT]Crunch]

How this applied to WWII, it doesn't.  You had orders to fulfill A, B, or C mission, and none of these books existed.  Only the school of hard knocks and the experience of the guys around you, which depending on when you got there probably didn't exceed your own.  Not only that, but war tends to change the whole scope on an almost daily basis.  Not much from 1940 still applied in 45. 

 

It also works the other way around in the sim, watch out for the guys who don't fly the books, but fully understand their planes and instinctively know how to improvise tactically on the fly, and have a knack in judging relative energy states, not that hard to pick up on.  Just go get yourself clobbered a couple of hundred times, you'll probably start getting it.  Sticking to the book makes you predictable.  Not saying there's nothing valuable to glean there, but it'll never be a catch all precisely because of that commonality in the knowledge base.  Your tactically limiting yourself, and when someone or something changes the winning conditions...    

Edited August 1, 2019 by [CPT]Crunch
spelink

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Sticking to the book makes you predictable.

It‘s ok if you predictably shoot enemies in the back.

[IVJG4-Knight]

9 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It‘s ok if you predictably shoot enemies in the back.

 

Wow now i saw you on this thread.

I find it amusing considering your "experience " in this domain made you say  quote "good old hitler would have  won the Normandy campaign if only the me 262 was converted early into a bomber ". 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by IVJG4-Knight

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

Wow now i saw you on this thread.

I find it amusing considering your "experience " in this domain made you say  quote "good old hitler would have  won the Normandy campaign if only the me 262 was converted early into a bomber ". 

?

My comment was intended to only seeking the duel style fight to the death where you demonstrate your superior ACM and shooting abilities as only way to fight if scoring is your goal. No more.

 

Regard to what I supposedly have said, if I had said that, I had started with „bad old Hitler...“ Nevertheless, if what I typed meant that to you, I should really watch my typing indeed.

I do remember though making the argument that the armed recce missions flown by the baddies were at least as much of help (or possibly more) than preying on bombers flying elsewhere. There was never much of a conversion phase, as mostly other issues kept it from being deployed into service in meaningful numbers. I still stand by that.

 

Furthermore, I don‘t have „experience“ in bombing adolescents on a beach. Not even „„„„„experience“““““. None at all. Just for the record.

[IVJG4-Knight]

Just now, ZachariasX said:

?

My comment was intended to only seeking the duel style fight to the death where you demonstrate your superior ACM and shooting abilities as only way to fight if scoring is your goal. No more.

 

Regard to what I supposedly have said, if I had said that, I had started with „bad old Hitler...“ Nevertheless, if what I typed meant that to you, I should really watch my typing indeed.

I do remember though making the argument that the armed recce missions flown by the baddies were at least as much of help (or possibly more) than preying on bombers flying elsewhere. There was never much of a conversion phase, as mostly other issues kept it from being deployed into service in meaningful numbers. I still stand by that.

 

Furthermore, I don‘t have „experience“ in bombing adolescents on a beach. Not even „„„„„experience“““““. None at all. Just for the record.

 

 .Good luck trying to fool me .You see unlike other persons i write only stuff i'm sure about.

 

I was arguing about fighter tactics and how A Galland and Doolitle have influenced fighter tactics with a few brilliant ideas and you supported a blatantly wrong strategy just to push your agenda.

 

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

Good luck trying to fool me .

I still don‘t see how I supposedly was trying to fool you. The only thing I said was that it is ok to shoot your opponent in the back, meaning you score. Full stop.

 

As for the rest, it is my assessment is one after the fact looking at delivered results. I‘m not making theories. Also, I‘m not pushing any agenda. The planes were as they were and things happened as they happened. I was commenting at what was done. Not what should be done.

 

But since this is a thread on air combat theories, can you detail your opinion/fact/theory on the matter? It shouldn’t be too far OT then. I must have (inadvertently) struck a nerve there. Care to elaborate? 

[IVJG4-Knight]

Just now, ZachariasX said:

I still don‘t see how I supposedly was trying to fool you.

Just now, ZachariasX said:

Regard to what I supposedly have said, if I had said that, I had started with „bad old Hitler...

 

 

Because :

I said Galland was a brilliant strategist , came up with Doolittle's idea of : loose fighter cove, flying in front of bomber formations .

You said he basically wasn't very good at all, not based on logic .I mean you even confused Peltz with Galland (the ardennes).

And i responded he's much better than Hitler.Hitler made silly decisions like me 262 as bomber.

And then came your bomb : No you're wrong again "good old hitler would have  won the Normandy campaign if only the me 262 was converted early into a bomber ". 

 

So i should let you write on a topic about air tactics when you write stuff like this ? 

 

[MiloMorai]

On 7/31/2019 at 6:22 AM, CrazyDuck said:

One of points here is that a lot of people confuse energy fighting with Boom and Zoom. These are two completely separate things. Every plane can BnZ. An I-16 can BnZ an F-15 in certain situations. Boom and Zoom inherently assumes E advantage of the attacker over his target (which is of course always desireable and always an advantage). However, if a certain fighter imperatively needs E advantage over competitor in order to have realistic chances to win a fight, then we are not dealing with "tactics" etc., we are simply looking at an excuse for a poor performing dogfighter.

 

A truly capable energy fighter on the other hand will be able to get the upper hand over the opponent even from equal or even inferior initial E-state (main difference from BnZ, which, as stated above, requires E advantage by definition). It will be able to do so via maneouvering primarily in vertical planes, through power climbs and dives, constantly transforming speed into altitude and back, until favorable position is acquired.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

There was a guy in the old EAW days that would dual. He would take the 'worst' a/c and totally dominate the supposedly superior a/c.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

I said Galland was a brilliant strategist

My mileage varies here. But I would say he was a good tactician.

 

1 hour ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

And then came your bomb : No you're wrong again "good old hitler would have  won the Normandy campaign if only the me 262 was converted early into a bomber ". 

Bomb surprise. Can you show me where I supposedly said such nonsense? Besides the use, adding bomb racks were never the deeper issue for having large numbers of that aircraft operational.

[Retnek]

2 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

Because :

I said Galland was a brilliant strategist ...

Hm, hm - the source about General Galland mostly used is a book written by Galland himself ... a good tactic to display a self-chosen picture for the public. Quite commonly done by German leaders of all kind after WW2 and astonishing effective until today. The picture painted that way often was incomplete at least - Galland is one of these cases. I gladly would like to read a critical study about the history of the higher Luftwaffe day fighter command in WW2 - is there any? Is there any substantial biography about Galland, too? (I don't think so)

 

In the meantime one should read the better autobiographies, written by Rall, Krupinski, maybe Steinhoff f.e. Here again a very interesting aspect is what contemporary is ignored by the author. Or just cited because he has been in a position one had to mention somehow. And what persons are explicitly presented as good fellows and / or capable superiors.
Those men all went through the same sh.., so veterans are very reluctant with critics or finger-pointing. But they are free to praise and honour.

[IVJG4-Knight]

11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

My mileage varies here. But I would say he was a good tactician.

 

Bomb surprise. Can you show me where I supposedly said such nonsense? Besides the use, adding bomb racks were never the deeper issue for having large numbers of that aircraft operational.

 

I'm happy you changed your mind.

I deleted the private conversation (1 september 2018) because i believed i was wasting my time after that sentence  .

If you still haven't deleted it You will be surprised to see it's word for word .Anyway i wanted to see your opinion now.So the issue is done for me.

 

 

9 hours ago, Retnek said:

Hm, hm - the source about General Galland mostly used is a book written by Galland himself ... a good tactic to display a self-chosen picture for the public. Quite commonly done by German leaders of all kind after WW2 and astonishing effective until today. The picture painted that way often was incomplete at least - Galland is one of these cases. I gladly would like to read a critical study about the history of the higher Luftwaffe day fighter command in WW2 - is there any? Is there any substantial biography about Galland, too? (I don't think so)

 

In the meantime one should read the better autobiographies, written by Rall, Krupinski, maybe Steinhoff f.e. Here again a very interesting aspect is what contemporary is ignored by the author. Or just cited because he has been in a position one had to mention somehow. And what persons are explicitly presented as good fellows and / or capable superiors.
Those men all went through the same sh.., so veterans are very reluctant with critics or finger-pointing. But they are free to praise and honour.

 

  Look first of all i never even read he's book .I read the opinion of journalist, publication owner, who i know has interviewed multiple ww2 pilots, has a team of historians that work for him  etc.Some of Galland's ideas are what i would have done .It's a personal opinion.

Anyway this journalist in he's publication and i , believe Galland was a good tactician .I can go on and on and write 100 pages on tactics and such , how and why etc .

 

Good bad is all subjective .If you listen to today's historians who are a bunch of couch potatoes eager to push their agenda than everybody they choose is incompetent . Even I can make Napoleon seem incompetent based on he's campaigns in Egipt , Russia and i think he's the best strategist ever.

Edited August 3, 2019 by IVJG4-Knight

[Lusekofte]

Well to me none of the historical fights matter. 

They simply do not apply in multiplayer. 

I think it only happened once during BOB that 109 stuck for a dogfight. And it did not go well for any. 

If you loose one experienced Or one leader, winning a battle had no meaning. They where irreplaceable. In a historical perspective it is proven, and for the pilots flying the same. 

We are facing the same aces no matter how many times you shoot them down. 

Many times it is the one knowing the irregular maneuvers not possible in real world winning. Best hardware stable pc best tracking device. 

I learned that the ability to identify a plane early enough is a major thing.  

I refuse to shoot any friendly and had many regrets due to that

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

I'm happy you changed your mind.

I deleted the private conversation (1 september 2018) because i believed i was wasting my time after that sentence  .

If you still haven't deleted it You will be surprised to see it's word for word .Anyway i wanted to see your opinion now.So the issue is done for me.

For the record, everything I wrote to you is very much in line with my previous statements and I didn‘t change my mind really on anything. And if you have issues with wwiiaircraftperformance, don‘t make it an issue about me. It is not my site. I suggest you venture on to other sites that tell you what you like but leave me alone about that.

 

Also, in no private message I wrote you did I write what you are quoting me with. So don‘t put that in my mouth, it is serious malpractice doing so, not to mention rude. It is generally bad taking PM in the open, but like this, you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel. And just so you know, today is the first day of the rest of your life where you will not use *I deleted it* as proof for anything in your life, ever.

[71st_AH_Lure]

On 8/3/2019 at 5:19 AM, LuseKofte said:

I learned that the ability to identify a plane early enough is a major thing.  

I refuse to shoot any friendly and had many regrets due to that

This, I believe, above all else is why I am so miserable in a dogfight ? I can spot most any GA plane irl at 2 or 3k feet in the air but in Il 2? I need to be at 60 feet on their six to see what the hell it is! Maybe my brain is getting too old

[IVJG4-Knight]

On 8/3/2019 at 12:19 PM, LuseKofte said:

Well to me none of the historical fights matter. 

They simply do not apply in multiplayer. 

I think it only happened once during BOB that 109 stuck for a dogfight. And it did not go well for any. 

 

 

     My opinion is Shaw's book alone is worthless in multiplayer .But for example i shot down many p51s in another sim because they didn't know how to 

fly a combat formation.They flew so close to each other that all their attention was directed towards keeping that close formation.This is a big mistake .

I also saw 2-3 and even four plane flying one if front of each other .This was a tactic used by RAF during battle of Britain .Germans didn't think much of this tactic

and called it the line of idiots.

Some were civilian airline pilots who didn't know anything about combat so it's understandable .

 

About the 109 and BOB dogfights : i think the 109 was used poorly .Galland (who i think was a brilliant tactician )said to Goring that it's a mistake to use the 109 for providing close cover to the bombers.The planes needed to zig zag to bleed speed in order to stay close enough to the bombers.This "tactic " also burned a lot more fuel than what Galland proposed:

To fly in front of the bombers (just like Doolitle proposed later in war).This is just my opinion on the matter .

 

23 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

For the record, everything I wrote to you is very much in line with my previous statements and I didn‘t change my mind really on anything. And if you have issues with wwiiaircraftperformance, don‘t make it an issue about me. It is not my site. I suggest you venture on to other sites that tell you what you like but leave me alone about that.

 

Also, in no private message I wrote you did I write what you are quoting me with. So don‘t put that in my mouth, it is serious malpractice doing so, not to mention rude. It is generally bad taking PM in the open, but like this, you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel. And just so you know, today is the first day of the rest of your life where you will not use *I deleted it* as proof for anything in your life, ever.

 

First of all as i said before it's important to me what you say now.

Do you recall having the conversation ? yes or no ?

Did you at any time write that Galland is a worse strategist , commander than the Head of the german state during ww2(the dictator )  ? Yes or no ?

 

Second maybe if you have a private conversation and find out about some threat you're the kind of guy that thinks it's not polite to tell anybody about it.

Depends on the content of the conversation.But don't worry i will talk to a friend of mine that's knows this stuff and see if it can be recovered and when i 

go to Germany to visit my relatives i'll talk to a lawyer to see what's what.